January 1, 2012

Obviously, the man is trying to get reelected, but it's so absurd to pose as if standing on principle, when you're not willing to say or do anything at all. Here's the news story about Obama — from his vacation outpost in Hawaii — signing a military spending bill and saying "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

The White House had said that the legislation could lead to an improper military role in overseeing detention and court proceedings and could infringe on the president’s authority in dealing with terrorism suspects. But it said that Mr. Obama could interpret the statute in a way that would preserve his authority.

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

But isn't that what he's been doing with his authority — holding the detainees indefinitely? Or is he somehow not authorizing it. It's just happening, because he's not affirmatively acting to end the indefinite detention. Is passivity and wishy-washiness consistent with "our most important traditions and values as a nation"? Or is emitting pompous blather like "our most important traditions and values as a nation" the really important tradition he's upholding?

He also said he would reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” that suspects be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

So, you don't seem to have a plan to try the detainees, and you won't reject the notion of military courts or embrace the lofty but impractical idea of civilian courts. You just reject a "rigid across-the-board requirement" of military courts. It's fine to want to preserve the presidential discretion here, but it's another example of Obama's policy of no policy. He does not want to be pinned down about having to do anything at all, which makes it look like he's going to hold the detainees without trial indefinitely — i.e., until the end of his presidency — and he wants to be able to do that without admitting that it's an actual policy of his. Because it's not. It "would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." So he can't be doing that. But he is, but he's not authorizing doing that. So he won't defend it. In fact, he wants to be in a position to rail against the very policy that he is... not authorizing... just following.

No, no, that would be too bold. Leading from behind! Oh, no, not me. I'm just biding my time, out here on my island, waiting for my limited term to expire, while you folks over there on your island bide your time, indefinitely....

ADDED: Let's go back to January 27, 2009, one week into the Obama presidency. I'm talking with Slate's Emily Bazelon, and she's certain Obama is about to close Guantanamo, and I feel that I can detect in his statements that he's giving a sop to people like her and he's not going to do anything:

Now, it's 3 years later. Obama's first and probably only presidential term is rolling to a close, and he hasn't done anything with the detainees. (And if you're about to slam me in the comments, once again, for voting for Obama, let me say: Imagine if John McCain had become President and Guantanamo were still open, how thoroughly steamed Emily and her ilk would be now.)

127 comments:

"Leading from behind" comes from Larry Niven's "Ring World." It describes the puppeteers, an alien species noted for extreme cowardice. The puppeteer leader is the most cowardly of the puppeteers, and he "leads from behind."

Somehow killing American citizens with Predator drones fits in with our most important traditions and values as a nation. Just not detaining them indefinitely. Because...um, er...yeah. Why was that again?

I just cannot understand why the left isn't furious about Obama's broken promises to close Gitmo, and to end DOMA.

Such suckers, they are. So passive and sheep-like. They readily succumbed to the contrived #OWS nonsense, which was contrived solely to take the focus away from Obama's failures and aim it a vague cadre of others.

MichaelHaz. We do not hear about Gitmo from the left because the left does not care about Gitmo. Except as a high horse to ride when a Republican is in office. It will become a terrible moral issue again in one year.

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Oddly enough, there was this fellow named Lincoln who authorized indefinite detention of a whole bunch of Americans without trial back during the 1860s because they were making war on the US. What's more, he didn't give them any trial, military or civilian. He even authorized members of the US military to kill such individuals rather than serve warrants and arrest them where they were gathered.

So when Obama says that the provision on indefinite detention of US citizens breaks with out most important traditions and values, I'd like to know on what basis he makes said determination -- you know, given that he comes from "the land of Lincoln", launched his campaign at a Lincoln-related cite, and has a portrait of Lincoln in the Oval Office? or is he going to use one of his executive orders to direct the demolition of the Lincoln Memorial because the man's actions were contrary to our most important traditions and values.

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

"And if you're about to slam me in the comments, once again, for voting for Obama, let me say: Imagine if John McCain had become President and Guantanamo were still open, how thoroughly steamed Emily and her ilk would be now."

Huh? Are you serious? We're supposed to reconsider your vote because A McCain Presidency would have made many some liberal flunkies angry?

Wouldn't want that.

The reality is this whole detainee thing...heck the whole war thing...is really a non-issue for the majority of the left. They don't care. It's simply a tool to bludgeon their opponents. It will be again you wait and see. Your vote notwithstanding.

I am not going to slam you yet again for voting for Obama. But many of us found these character traits in him during the primary 2008 and were screaming our heads off but nobody listened, not the least of whom people like that fool Emily whatever. I just feel sad that you all got taken in by a charlatan. Even now look at how he is posturing himself on this -- you do a fine job of it in your post.

"In fact, he wants to be in a position to rail against the very policy that he is... not authorizing... just following. "

Time to send the waffle man back to his island for a permanent vacation.

"I just cannot understand why the left isn't furious about Obama's broken promises to close Gitmo, and to end DOMA."

It's the mirror image of the "What's the matter with Kansas" argument. Liberals voting for people who mouth the right phrases, but don't take the seemingly appropriate actions once in office.

Some on the left are furious w/ Obama for these things (e.g., our own Cookie). But come election time, most will vote for somebody who at least appears to be somewhat more in their corner ideologically over somebody who they consider plainly unsympathetic.

The man is a posturing prevaricating poltroon. Your vote didn't make him that way.

But his Presidency, and the damage he's done to the country both domestically and internationally is the price we have to pay for a whole bunch of folks wanting to feel good about electing the first black President. They didn't seem to care to vet his track record. As you grow older, you learn that every pleasure has its price. It's a sometimes bitter lesson.

McCain campaigned on keeping it open, so it wouldn't have been a surprise. If the economy improved under McCain (highly unlikely), the left might still be making a big stink about Guantanamo, but if the economy nosedived like it did, I suspect the left would be all over McCain for that.

I listen to NPR on occasion, and they do a story every week or 2 on Guantanamo. They're keeping the flame alive.

I think it's safe to say that McCain would've been a one-termer if elected. Neither he nor Obama were willing to make tough fiscal choices.

I've already had people tell me: "Obama can't do all the things he's promised. But he can in his second term."

Apparently, they never got the memo that he'd rather be a good one-term president. Oh well. Maybe they're hoping the sequel will be better than the original. More Empire Strikes Back, less Attack of the Clones.

I think McCain would have handled the financial situation better, solely because Democratic opposition would not have allowed him to make the same mistakes Obama did -- even though he would have prescribed close to the same remedy.

What a liar that Oabama is. "The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens ..."

Yet according to Levin and Leahy, it was the White House who lobbied hard to leave the bill ambiguous enough to allow exactly that, only relenting when his own party's Senators rose up in protest along with Republicans.

I think there are those on the left who are sincere about issues such as the closing of Gitmo and they are steamed about Obama's utter failure to live up to his promise but they are silent because there's nowhere to go with this. They aren't the people who got him elected anyway. The people who got him elected, the great squishy middle, don't care all that much about Gitmo. They didn't vote for him because he promised to close it.

And McCain's not President and he never will be so why bring up the non-existent alternate reality about what might have happened or how one side or the other would react to it? Plus it doesn't matter who anyone voted for in the last election. What matters now is who gets the vote in the upcoming election.

To gain the "powerful" position of president, and the other lesser but still powerful elected positions, you must throw crumbs to enough people to get elected. The left finds the tiniest of crumbs, the crumbs that you inhale without notice when you break a cookie, to be satisfying. Watching the Iowa Republican debates and reactions, the right doesn't find half a cookie the least bit mouthwatering.

If nothing else, it tells you something about how strongly each group holds their "values."

Garage. You like to comment about the comments, but not about the topic. Is Gitmo not a concern of yours? I seem to recall that it once was. What has changed your mind? Do you support the administration blindly on every single subject? Or do you think that showing some independence of mind undermines your politics? I am honestly curious about this because I have never once seen you question or oppose anything this administration. I have frequently seen you change a subject, more frequently try some " they do it too" form of argument, but never an outright stand against something the administration has done. Most of the liberal commenters held in some respect here, and most of the conservatives, often (not always) show some independence of mind. You never do. Gitmo would appear to be one of those areas of discussion where you could deviate without risk and yet you do not deviate. I would genuinely like to know what you think about this particular issue. I might eve agree with it.

"That's some pharmaceutical grade concern trolling right there A House. Well played!"I'm curious garage, what would your take be if our policy was the same today with the exception that our president was a republican? What would your comment to this post be then?

One of most important traditions, it seems, is to have Democratic politicians fool many of the people much of the time by saying one thing, doing another, and expecting that the press will provide the "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" cover.

Leftist politics is all about symbols over substance. I voted for 0 in part because he is African-American, and I thought his election would be a powerful symbol. A lot of voters did that in 2008. Gtmo was just a symbol to be used against the evil Bush.

Coming up this year, new symbols: Romney the heartless capitalist one percenter; the Arizona sheriff is the new Bull Connor; voter ID laws are the new literacy tests. The 0 administration and the media will change the subject. No more will be heard about the economy.

Garage. You like to comment about the comments, but not about the topic.

Eh, I commented on the post. Althouse is irked Obama won't take a position she disagrees with, so she can hammer him with it. Which is ironic as she is absolutely Smitt with Mitt!, and I'm not sure he actually has a position on anything.

The march of technology means that we no longer use indiscriminate bombings of civilians as a tool of war. That technique is now employed by the terrorists. In a further refinement of morality we now define war crimes not as indiscriminate bombings of civilians but as the non judicial detainment of people who engage in indiscriminate bombings.

So did you vote for the Obama that was going to make all those stupid mistakes, or did you vote for the one who was gonna follow Bush's policies and still be incompetent.

Not only did you vote for someone with a far left history containing no evidence of capable management of anything, but he didn't even accomplish your objective of clarifying left and right. He's all over the place and nowhere at the same time.

There has been a lot of clarity evolving, but it has come from watching Congress, The Tea Party, Occupoop, and supporters of both sides, but this President doesn't have a position other than: "Vote for me."

McCain would not have provided much clarity either, because he doesn't think any clearer, but I think he would of at least been much more competent and engaged.

I actually think Obama was inevitable, if not in 2008, then he would be getting elected this time. We had to go through the exercise so white people could prove something.

And if you're about to slam me in the comments, once again, for voting for Obama, let me say: Imagine if John McCain had become President and Guantanamo were still open, how thoroughly steamed Emily and her ilk would be now.

I guess Emily's mood doesn't concern me very much, one way or another. And your vote is your vote. It's not as though Obama won the state of Wisconsin by 1 vote anyway.

"Tough to take a position when our jails are already over crowed and we have been sending a small convicted number into the Super Max prisons. Althouse's prediction sounds more like a premature hope."

How is it tough to take a position? Taking specific action on a position might be hard -- but taking a position is not. Even if we assume that this dust cloud thrown up that is meant to distract us from the issue is a legitimate gripe, it still doesn't mean that the President should get off the hook for not making his desires clear.

He's the President. He should articulate his positions. Which would be great, since he's, you know, so great at articulating those positions.

We're due for a Historical Speech That Solves Our Problems soon anyway.

I've said before that while I voted for McCain, in hindsight I'm glad he was not elected. I think he'd have been much worse given the huge Democrat majorities in Congress.

McCain is an unprincipled politician. He loves working across the aisle. He would have WANTED to work with Nancy and Harry to jam through their agenda as long as he got some minor tweaks in. And with him as president, he'd have built a RINO coalition to get it passed on a bi-partisan basis. However small the chance is now for repealing Obamacare, repeal of "McCaincare" would not even be considered now if McCain had signed it into law. He definitely would have worked with Harry and Nancy to reform campaign finance laws after Citizen United. Probably some sort of amnesty. Maybe a watered down cap & trade.

With a huge Democratic majority in the House on Jan. 20, 2009 and a 59/60 seat Democrat majority in the Senate, I think a McCain presidency would have been an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Maggot -- Bush was fairly moderate, but the well has been poisoned for any Dem to work with a Rep president for awhile. Like Bush, McCain may have gotten a small victory here or there, but his (or the Republican's general) future defeat would have been more important than governing.

Of course, I'm cynical and think that they would again sacrifice governance for political power. But, it was Pelosi and Reid. That's what they do.

sykes.1 said..."'Leading from behind' comes from Larry Niven's 'Ring World.' It describes the puppeteers, an alien species noted for extreme cowardice. The puppeteer leader is the most cowardly of the puppeteers, and he 'leads from behind.'"

A position bearing the title of "the Hindmost"—although interestingly, in one of the sequels, a former Hindmost shows considerable courage in concocting a scheme to kidnap a Kzin, a Ringworlder, and a man, and to return to the Ringworld. This perhaps gives credence to the Puppeteer claim that it is not so much cowardice as it is prudence. ;)

Why don't Emily and her ilk get steamed enough to form a third party and run a true believer against Obama? The fact that they don't reveals the dirty little secret that power trumps ideals in leftyland. In rightyland too, just not to the same extent.

Althouse said..."Obviously, the man is trying to get reelected, but it's so absurd to pose as if standing on principle, when you're not willing to say or do anything at all."

This is what pragmatism looks like, no?

Levi Starks said..."I read Cindy Sheehan's newsletter, and I can tell you that NPR went from looking for opportunities to interview her when Bush was president, to not even knowing she's alive once Obama got in."

Any dog to beat a stick.

Paco Wové said..."Some on the left are furious w/ Obama for these things…. But come election time, most will vote for somebody who at least appears to be somewhat more in their corner ideologically over somebody who they consider plainly unsympathetic."

Well, that's true for both sides, and so it should be. I'm not thrilled about our choices on the GOP side, but you'd better believe I'm going to pick our nominee over a Democratic nominee I consider plainly unsympathetic.

Yes, apparently I didn't make that clear. The biggest flaw in Frank's book was in not realizing that the phenomenon he described (and decried) in those beat-down Kansas yokels applies just as truly to the Harper's readership.

Imagine if John McCain had become President and Guantanamo were still open, how thoroughly steamed Emily and her ilk would be now.

Mustn’t have the Left be upset. That would be bad.

I read Cindy Sheehan's newsletter, and I can tell you that NPR went from looking for opportunities to interview her when Bush was president, to not even knowing she's alive once Obama got in.

Succinctly and precisely put.

I just cannot understand why the left isn't furious about Obama's broken promises to close Gitmo, and to end DOMA.

Question.

We do not hear about Gitmo from the left because the left does not care about Gitmo. Except as a high horse to ride when a Republican is in office. It will become a terrible moral issue again in one year.

Answer.

I think it's safe to say that McCain would've been a one-termer if elected. Neither he nor Obama were willing to make tough fiscal choices.

I think McCain would have handled the financial situation better … even though he would have prescribed close to the same remedy[as Obama].

McCain would not have provided much clarity either, because he doesn't think any clearer, but I think he would of at least been much more competent and engaged. I actually think Obama was inevitable, if not in 2008, then he would be getting elected this time.

Fantasy

Alternative historical fiction is the best historical fiction.

And McCain's not President and he never will be so why bring up the non-existent alternate reality about what might have happened or how one side or the other would react to it?

Reality

0 administration and the media will change the subject. No more will be heard about the economy.

Needs to watch and read more MSM outlets. According to the MSM the economy is improving and that theme will be hammered over and over until the election. It may even be(marginally) true. The American economy is resilient, even with a President, Senate, MSM and academia that are determined to have a failed European socialist-style system despite that system’s obvious and predictable failure.

The onerous Obamacare simply would not have become law under McCain. Despite willingnessto vote for him The Tea Party, and much of the Right (like me), disliked McCain even more than they did Obama. The anti-spending meme would be just as strong and many on the left would be on board too under a Rep. President. I don't like McCain, but we would simply have a less corrupt, smaller government right now, under him, and probably a smaller one in 2020, regardless of who's president then.

"And Republicans are going to nominate, of all people, the creator of ObamaCare. Principles!"

That's right, and then he's gonna be elected and Obama will be sent home. Then we will dismantle Obamacare. So what's the principle again?

Are we supposed let Obama win? That's not principle - that's suicide. Romney and the Tea Party Ideas gonna save you from your mistakes, no madder how hard it is for us to swallow, because that's principle!

The great thing about nominating Mitt Romney is it will take away the "Republicans were happy to do nothing to solve the health care problem!" and the "Republicans want you to be on your own" arguments that Obama has queued up.

The big argument against Gitmo was that it hurt us in the eyes of the world. Obviously the rest of the world doesn't really care very much, it was just a way to further the "The world hates us because of Bush!" meme. It would have been cool if politicians like Senator Obama could have talked about Gitmo like a grown up.

Imagine if John McCain had become President and Guantanamo were still open, how thoroughly steamed Emily and her ilk would be now.

Precisely why does anybody sane even remotely care "how thoroughly steamed Emily and her ilk would be"? Emily and her ilk were thoroughly satirized by the late Al Capp as "Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything." She and her ilk are always steamed at something or another. Just deal with it, Professor.

And as for the comments:

Are there no deep thinkers remaining on the left?

That's a joke, right? I mean, there are plenty of self-described deep thinkers on the left, but the only deep thinker in the entire United States is David Gelernter.

I read Cindy Sheehan's newsletter, and I can tell you that NPR went from looking for opportunities to interview her when Bush was president, to not even knowing she's alive once Obama got in.

Anybody who is surprised by this is automatically disqualified from being listed as a "deep thinker."

I just cannot understand why the left isn't furious about Obama's broken promises to close Gitmo, and to end DOMA.

What makes you think we aren't. Of course we aren't going to air our dirty laundry just to make you happy. We realize that no matter how badly Obama has let is down in many areas, he is infinitely preferable to any of the alternatives the GOP has proffered.

Freder Frederson said..."What makes you think we aren't [furious about Obama's broken promises to close Gitmo, and to end DOMA]. Of course we aren't going to air our dirty laundry just to make you happy. We realize that no matter how badly Obama has let is down in many areas, he is infinitely preferable to any of the alternatives the GOP has proffered."

Oh, yeah, y'all are mad as hell, but it's impotent frustration, so you'll just metastasize it into a tumor, and suck it up and accept your guy as better than the alternative. Just like conservatives did in 2004 with Bush. Do you suppose that in the long run it hurts more to have struck that pose and won or to have struck it and lost? I should imagine that if you lose, you can at least console yourself by mythmaking—you know, "Obama was just constrained in his first term; if we'd won a second, like I wanted, he would have done this that and the other."

These comments are funny. Not only funny, but predictably funny. Here's one:

We do not hear about Gitmo from the left because the left does not care about Gitmo. Except as a high horse to ride when a Republican is in office. It will become a terrible moral issue again in one year.

We do not hear about the debt from the right because the right does not care about the debt. Except as a high horse to rise when a Democrat is in office. It will become a terrible moral issue again in one year.

Accusing others of the same hypocrisy you practice when not pretending it away is comically hypocritical. Deep thinking indeed.

suck it up and accept your guy as better than the alternative. Just like conservatives did in 2004 with Bush. Do you suppose that in the long run it hurts more to have struck that pose and won or to have struck it and lost?

2004? Heck yes, Bush was better than Kerry. Kerry was and remains an idiot.

Closing Gitmo is easy. #1 none of the people that have been detained there for most of the last 10 years represent any eminent threat. As it stands they have been given a de-facto life sentence without the benefit of a trial.#2 I assume we've kept some sort of a record of where they were captured. Load them on a military transport strap a parachute on their back along with a weeks provisions, and kick them out over the same piece of God forsaken desert from which they were plucked.Game over.

We do not hear about the debt from the right because the right does not care about the debt. Except as a high horse to rise when a Democrat is in office. It will become a terrible moral issue again in one year.

I'm afraid I don't get your example.Do you think we heard less about deficits and the debt under Bush than we do under Obama? Or do you think we aren't talking about them now? Do you think if a Republican is elected, we won't hear about them?

Joe Schmoe said...McCain campaigned on keeping it open, so it wouldn't have been a surprise.============No, McCain campaigned against it as a "stain on his personal honor and that of the country's, that it was open and was a Symbol. Romney said he'd double it's capacity and bring "AQ radicals and others from Iraq (all since let go or turned over to Malaki).

McCain railed at Romney over that and Romney saying he had no problem with interrogating terrorists, including coercive measures, to save lives. McCAin and his toady boy Lindsay wanted military tribunals in the USA to give "all the terrorists fair trials". And said Romney was wrong onb interrogations "outside the Army Field Manual of what privates and above can ask a freshly captured enemy soldier" - because "Torture never works!

The irony is that if McCain had been elected, GITMO would have closed.

And McCain would not be an eligible natural born Citizen either, since he was born in Panama, against the precedent definition of Minor v. Happersett (SCOTUS 1875). That case defined natural born Citizen as part of the holding of the case-- that Virginia Minor was indeed , as a woman, a Citizen, because she was a natural born Citizen, i.e born in the US of US CITIZEN PARENTSSSS.

Of course as a law prof you must of known that Obama (born British, of a British subject father), and McCain (born in Panama) were not eligible natural born Citizens.... right? Wait, You, a "law prof" VOTED for an ineligible candidate?????!!!??? What do they learn at that school?

Anyway, maybe you are aware that there are THREE Contest of eligibility suits against Obama in 3 States. A lot more are coming. If the government, Media nor Academia will not vet the eligibility of Presidential Candidates, then We the People will have to.

Many more of these suits are coming-- and they all focus on Obama's birth as a British subject, of a British subject father. Maybe you should get ahead of it rather than look clueless

If the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence "from any avenue" (see Federalist #68), how is it possible that one born BRITISH could be eligible?--- that's a 6 lane highway to foreign influence into the Oval office!!!

It's obvious that Republicans only cared about the fact that Obama is in office, and not about anything that he does. He could have implemented policy written by clubhouse director of admissions Grover Norquist himself, and they would have complained and attacked. To hear talk about integrity from a party that cares only about whether it has power is laughable.

It would be venal, but I honestly think most of the Republican rank-and-file are too ignorant to realize that they can do anything wrong. To judge Republicans on their actual acts and record would be an unfair benchmark for them. They are simply not capable of understanding that their actions can have consequences.

Simon - "A position bearing the title of "the Hindmost"—although interestingly, in one of the sequels, a former Hindmost shows considerable courage in concocting a scheme to kidnap a Kzin, a Ringworlder, and a man, and to return to the Ringworld. This perhaps gives credence to the Puppeteer claim that it is not so much cowardice as it is prudence."

===========From my sci-fi reading, the Puppeteers believed cowardice was rational. They evolved from herbivores. They believed the beings that make money and more importantly, through wealth gain power which means more Safety --are those that lend the resources to those that risk lives in war and adventure, (let.. or even better, carefully manipulate and lie to induce some other poor bastard pay for Puppeteer lending or waress - for the privilege of dying for his cause) and being cowardly assures Puppeteer profit without mortal risk.

But sometimes, given Puppeteers trusted no one, the Hindmost found it advisable to have an insane puppeteer on scouting missions to ensure the other scouts of other species did not deceive the Puppeteers..especially while they were moving their Homeworlds through space into potentially hostile territory where possible threats and risks came into the equation.

So they found a few Puppeteers that they deemed certifiably insane - who as part of their mental pathology - did occasionally accept risk and danger. Nessum was one such puppeteer.

Garage. I doubt you have an opinion since you seem disinclined to comment other than to offer the season's first "fuck"

I think Obama should have not made the promise to close Gitmo unless he had considered all the consequences beforehand, which i do not think he had. His promise was a pander to those on the left, mainly, and to people like you who were against Gitmo because GWB had put its apparatus in place. I doubt you cared beyond the fact that Bush did it.

That said, the Republic would have stood had the prison been closed and the prisoners relocated. They could have been tried by tribunal or court as the situation demanded.

Obama would have earned some respect had he stuck to his promise. But he earned none and lost plenty.

Indeed, although Louis observes at one point that the instinct to turn from the enemy also plays to Pupeteer physiology as well as Pupeteer psychology, insofar as their principal physical weapon is a kick from their hind leg, the use of which which requires them to turn away from their attacker.

"being cowardly assures Puppeteer profit without mortal risk."

Hence the events of At the Core.

"Nessum was one such puppeteer."

Nessus. Nessum is the first line of a famous slice of opera. :)

Mick said..."McCain would not be an eligible natural born Citizen either, since he was born in Panama, against the precedent definition of Minor v. Happersett (SCOTUS 1875). That case defined natural born Citizen as part of the holding of the case-- that Virginia Minor was indeed , as a woman, a Citizen, because she was a natural born Citizen, i.e born in the US of US CITIZEN PARENTSSSS."

"there are THREE Contest of eligibility suits against Obama in 3 States … [and m]any more of these suits are coming-- and they all focus on Obama's birth as a British subject, of a British subject father."

"MSM , NPR, Matt Damon and Emily would NOT have allowed McCain to assassinate Al-Awlaki or ignore the War Powers Act or sign on to military detentions!"

That is a goddamned good reason to have a GOP president. 0 has managed to give us the worst of both parties: the sanctimonious but empty preaching of the left, learned by watching Rev. Wright preach for 20 years; and the cold-blooded disregard of human rights practiced by Cheney & Co.

Divided government is usually good government because, in this day and age, it is as close as we will get to government according to the principle of "first, do no harm." The problem today is that the Republicans in Congress are even stupider than 0. Exhibit A being the pre-Xmas fiasco.

According to Obama, and other opportunists, passive behavior is actually active behavior until it's not. Therefore, he is right when he is wrong and he is right when he is right. A positive determination can be assessed by analyzing the leverage an individual or group is capable of wielding against the competing interests they dream of exploiting.

"I just cannot understand why the left isn't furious about Obama's broken promises to close Gitmo, and to end DOMA."

"Are there no deep thinkers remaining on the left?"

There are certainly writers on the left who regularly excoriate Obama for his betrayal of all he seemed to promise he would be to those who were desperate to believe that in him we would get better--and different--than Bush,(of which we have got neither). Among them are such as Chris Floyd, Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, Arthur Silber, (whose political orientation cannot be identified as either left or right, as he hates them all with equal righteous fury), to name a few off the top of my head.

It's the mainstream Democrats who seem to have accepted Obama, for the most part, as doing "the best he can do in the face of Republican obstructionism", (yeah...it's total bullshit); or as being the proverbial "lesser of two evils" (is he?); or, worst of all, who think he's actually done a good job!

But then, to consider the Democrats and "the left" as one and the same is, ahem, not accurate.

" Go back and read the case; it does not hold say what your birther websites have told you that it holds".

So what does it say? I have given proof--- you nothing. Obama is mot eligible, since it is not possible to be born a dual citizen, and be an eligible natural born Citizen.

In Minor judge Waite EXPLICITLY says that V. Minor's US Citizenship is a necessary holding in the case, and he based that Citizenship on A2S1C4. Then the question became-- does the Constitution give a US Citizen the right to vote--- the answer then, AND NOW is the same---- NO. States conduct elections--- and that is also why We the People are forced to Vet the candidates if Congress will not.

You all quote from the same nonsense script.NONE of those cases were decided on merits-- ALL were denied standing, as the cowards in Congress hid behind the skirts of the politicized court. Standing is not the issue now that Obama is Candidate again-- as MANY state statutes give "electors" (voters) absolute STANDING to challenge eligibility. Judging by the ferocious response of the Obama Internet Obfuscatory Brigade-- I see they are scared that their treason will finally be fully realized by the people.

"Of course as a law prof you must of known that Obama (born British, of a British subject father), and McCain (born in Panama) were not eligible natural born Citizens.... right?

George Romney was born in a Mormon colony in Mexico. Is Mitt eligible?"

Do you really still fail to grasp the argument after all this time. It matters not Where Romney's father was born (He was not a natural born Citiizen), but whether he was a US Citizen when Mitt was born--- he was, when Mitt was born in Detroit--- Born in the US of US Citizens parentssss-- natural born as per Minor v. Happersett.

It says that at common law "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also," and that while opinion was divided on the question of "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents," "[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." You would know that if you'd ever read the case—which your reliance on vague supposed paraphrases in lieu of quotation or citation makes clear. And if it was true that "[i]n Minor judge Waite EXPLICITLY says that V. Minor's US Citizenship is a necessary holding in the case, and he based that Citizenship on A2S1C4," you would quote the language or supply the pincite. Challenged to do so many times, you have never once done so. Instead you simply regurgitate the name of the case over and over and over and over again.

"You all quote from the same nonsense script."

Now there's irony!

"NONE of those cases were decided on merits"

That's right—and that was kind of my point. Your new batch of cases will share the fate of their identikit predecessors.

"Judging by the ferocious response of the Obama Internet Obfuscatory Brigade"

I'll make it easy for you Mick—here's a link to the case complete with pagination from the US reports. Why don't you take a gander and tell us the page number on which we'll find the "explicit" statement on which you rely?

And, by the by, lest silence be thought assent, I question your understanding of "holding," Mick: Since Minor held that suffrage wasn't an incident of citizenship, Mrs. Minor would have lost whether or not she was a citizen. In today's argot, the question of her citizenship could be said to have been assumed in her favor without deciding, or it could be called dicta, but what it could not honestly be called is essential to the outcome of the case.

Ritmo, there's a lot of internal debate on the right about debt. A lot of us conservatives were disappointed in GWB for the Medicare expansion and No Child Left Behind, both budget boondoggles. A lot of us spoke up critically at the time. Obama's further expansion of spending was the spark that finally lit the Tea Party fire. The tinder had already been arranged prior to 2008. We're sick of spending from both parties and are willing to admit it.

" And, by the by, lest silence be thought assent, I question your understanding of "holding," Mick: Since Minor held that suffrage wasn't an incident of citizenship, Mrs. Minor would have lost whether or not she was a citizen. In today's argot, the question of her citizenship could be said to have been assumed in her favor without deciding, or it could be called dicta, but what it could not honestly be called is essential to the outcome of the case."

Nice spin, though typically bereft of logic. Since lying requires that logic be left behind. The Obama Internet bootlicker operatives usually attack "understanding", or "that case doesn't say what you think it does."

Virginia Minor was pleading that the 14 Amendment gave her, a woman, and US Citizen, the right to vote. In the case the judge explained that the 14A did not give her any new "rights". As a woman, she was already a Citizen by A2S1C4, and as a US Citizen there was no "right" to vote in the US Constitution, before the 14A or since--- If she wasn't a US Citizen, then there would be NO CASE, or argument to decide--- OF COURSE NON US Citizens have no right to vote. JUDGE Waite Explicitly says that her US Citizenship is a necessary HOLDING in the case.

The Obama bootlickers have been staying up late trying to spin 1+2 into 5. The Original Citizenship holdings of M v. H have been cited in MANY SCOTUS cases since--- including a direct cite in your favorite spin machine, Wong Kim Ark, that natural born Citizens are those born in the US of US Citizens. Then there is Perkins v. Elg using the same definition in 1929.

"I'll make it easy for you Mick—here's a link to the case complete with pagination from the US reports. Why don't you take a gander and tell us the page number on which we'll find the "explicit" statement on which you rely?"

I've read the case many times. Why don't you show me the part where Waite says that V. Minor's US Citizenship is a necessary holding in the case. As per typical, Obama Internet Bootlickers give no proof of their own, and try to force those opposed to continually prove what is already proven. Original Citizenship law is cited to Minor MANY times since-- that proves it's value as "holding"-- a necessary fact that directly relates to the Case decision, i.e that US Citizenship, even before the 14 A did not confer a right to vote--- still the law today..

It says that at common law "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also," and that while opinion was divided on the question of "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents," "[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." You would know that if you'd ever read the case—which your reliance on vague supposed paraphrases in lieu of quotation or citation makes clear. And if it was true that "[i]n Minor judge Waite EXPLICITLY says that V. Minor's US Citizenship is a necessary holding in the case, and he based that Citizenship on A2S1C4," you would quote the language or supply the pincite. Challenged to do so many times, you have never once done so. Instead you simply regurgitate the name of the case over and over and over and over again.

"You all quote from the same nonsense script."

Now there's irony!

"NONE of those cases were decided on merits"

That's right—and that was kind of my point. Your new batch of cases will share the fate of their identikit predecessors.

"Judging by the ferocious response of the Obama Internet Obfuscatory Brigade"

That's funny—you suppose me a supporter of Obama?"

You can be anything you want on the Internet can't you. Obama Internet brigade has been presenting themselves as "prudent Conservatives" for years.

The case said it WAS NEVER DOUBTED that natural born Citizens-- those born in the US of US Citizen parents, were US Citizens. It was DOUBTED that those born of aliens were US Citizens, not that they were natural born Citizens. If they were the class known as natural born, then there would be no doubt.

"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. "

Those evil Republicans stopped him when he had veto proof Democratic majorities in both houses. They were so strong he couldn't get a budget. They even forced him to rack up deficits exceeding those of all other presidents combined in his first term - probably programmed the computers to toss in a few extra zeros on every check.

At last Mick admits it! He finally tells us on what language in Minor v. Happersett he relies! Hitherto, he has simply regurgitated the claim that the case supports his position, but now he quotes the language that he thinks supports his case. It doesn't. Here is how Mick spins it:

"The case said it WAS NEVER DOUBTED that natural born Citizens-- those born in the US of US Citizen parents, were US Citizens. It was DOUBTED that those born of aliens were US Citizens, not that they were natural born Citizens. If they were the class known as natural born, then there would be no doubt. 'To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.'" (Quoting Minor, 88 U.S. at 166).

That quote does not, of course, support his point in any event, and the key language on which he really relies is his paraphrase of a paragraph on the following page. Here's what it actually says:

"[People who were citizens of the states at the time the Constitution was adopted were the original American citizens, and a]dditions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

(Id., at 167-68 (footnotes omitted).) This plainly does not say what Mick represents it to say. It says only that "children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens"—it does not say, and in fact expressly disclaims saying ("it is not necessary to solve these doubts") who else may be a citizen.

Mick also continues to insist (again without citation) that the citizenship issue is holding rather than dicta. Again, it is not. Minor claimed that (1) she was a citizen, (2) the franchise was a privelege of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus (3) Missouri's restriction of the franchise to males violated the Constitution. Recognizing that it might decide the case on other grounds, but waiving such considerations, 88 U.S., at 165, the court's answer was simple: It was "unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void," id., at 178. Because the court rejected the citizenship-based claim Minor wished to make, the discussion of Minor's citizenship is dicta because it doesn't control the outcome: If the right to vote that Minor was invoking didn't exist, she lost her case regardless of whether she was a citizen. Cf., e.g., NASA v. Nelson, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011) (assuming the existence of a right to informational privacy in order to reject the narrower claim that it would apply in the case at bar). Thus, even if Minor said what Mick thinks it says about citizenship (which it doesn't, as I've already shown) its contribution on that question is nothing more than dicta.

Sloppy Seconds "Jay" (Big Mike's attempt at a neurotypical sock-puppet?) waited nearly two days to get in on the action so that he could say:

You mean like how you and your ilk hold Obama accountable for the economy?

Oh wait, Obama blames his predecessor and you ignorants cheer him on.

Your projection is comical.

Apparently he did this because he is too ignorant to realize that it's the job of Congress, not the president, to pass needed legislation that can improve the state of the economy. Which is an error of comical proportions.

I don't doubt that such a debate would be needed. So hopefully what you say is true.

The most important part of that debate begins when Republicans decide to recognize that debt is not the same thing as spending. At some point, they're going to have to decide which is worse. Or else they can just keep blaming their indecision and unwillingness to lead, follow, or get out of the way on Obama - as the useless sockpuppet "Jay" does above.